What makes a "good" thread?
I was hoping we could have a template for what makes a good thread. Often you see some good topics get bogged down in personal attacks, an ambiguity of definitions used, stipulative definitions used where official ones should be used, and so on. Often times, directionality is lacking due to lack of knowledge about the subject or some form of self-deceit. Anyway...
So, what makes a good thread a good thread?
So, what makes a good thread a good thread?
Comments (54)
You could also post a potentially good but poorly structured post. Have Group A and Group B respond to the same badly written OP in separate threads.
One could thereby observe the difference a well-structured and a poorly structured OP faired in the hands of good posters and bad posters.
Another approach would be to allow the OP author to delete off-topic, off-point postings. The OP author would have to be on-line a lot to delete every weeds-bound post.
I have now sent your OP into the weeds by making an impractical experiment out of it.
I could, if you would like, now launch a personal attack on your person to further ruin the integrity of your opening post.
The Uplift science fiction novels were about bestowing human-level sentience on dolphins and primates. Cracking good stories. Lots of science fiction novels feature sentient machines. Apparently the authors and enthusiastic readers of these novels are not members here.
90% of all of my OPs have failed to appeal to more than a few people. Either it's the way I pose topics, the topics itself, or personal animosity toward me. Of course I take a lack of interest personally.
This thread has 8 posts (including mine) in 16 hours. At this rate, it should fare well, although there's the real possibility it will suddenly die.
Seeking understanding, truth, wisdom or whatever, rather than merely trying to win an argument.
Really? It is only my impression that success is more immediate. Within 16 hours a virile manly thread will have taken off and have dozens of progeny. A wrinkly, limp-dick thread will get a post or two here and there and then shrivel up completely.
Timing matters too. Were you to start a new, not very novel thread on Ford/Kavan right now, it would probably not go anywhere, since the existing thread has been doing well. 435+ in 6 days).
Atheism and religion topics usually do well, even if most of them are really pretty similar. (Most of them could all be combined into one giant thread--The Gods: fir'em 'n agin'em.)
Alas, people vary and we can't entirely know another's interest or 'inclination' in/on a topic; but, spelling that out should be treated with greater significance.
How does one enforce that?
Yes. While it's epistemologically futile to claim otherwise, though.
I mean to imply that the state of affairs of our Rogerian agreement is in question, then we can only work though backward induction to isolate where we or what we were wrong about.
I think in some correspondence linguistic conception, simply as we go along discovering new truths.
I am here to represent them. :up:
OK, so let's assume we're engaging in a dispute utilizing reasoned argumentative strategies. If we both share the same goal of wanting to know the truth of the issue, then a Rogerian agreement becomes a necessary outcome.
I hope that word is not the one that was in use a lot in England.
roger: have sexual intercourse
Wow, that completely flew over my head. :rofl:
But that's not how we arrive at consensus building, no?
Quoting tim wood
Sure, our propositional attitude can differ even if we agree on the same thing or dispute. Which is an interesting phenomenon worth exploring in my opinion.
Quoting tim wood
Not in the slightest. Rogerian agreements implore a certain amount of Felicity and consent by both parties involved.
Posters that have the following;
A good measure of knowledge on the topic.
The willingness to learn what is not known about the topic.
The ability to express clearly their ideas without biases.
The topic should be;
Something that would be interesting to the people you wish to post in the thread.
Presented at the right time
Off limits to assholes.
I will stick to 330ml cans, they are cheaper, you can sell the cans later, and I can still count them up to about ten.
On a hot tropical day, which I see almost everyday, there is nothing more beautiful than finishing one ice cold can of what ever beer is available and knowing that there are still 5 just as cold in the fridge.
One of our local super markets has been bringing in Portuguese beers this last year or so. They are better than the local stuff and cost about 30% less. It costs about 50cents US a can.
Darn, that's some pretty cheap beer. Now I'm thirsty.
Want me to pass you an ice cold CEZKA?
Nah, I'm heading off to sleep. Cheers regardless. :smile:
I opine brilliantly and then everyone applauds loudly and celebrates my genius.
How would you distinguish members of group A from members of Group B? I think posters such as myself, stay on topic when the topic is sufficiently interesting to us. But when we are bored, like I am right now, we'll partake in threads which are lacklustre and of little interest. Then we'll wander off into the weeds.
:D
It goes to church on Sunday, and cleans its teeth twice a day, and likes beer.
Or is that a good supreme court judge?
Size isn't everything, and speed isn't either. My ideal for my own threads is to garner just enough responses to keep it on the front page for a few days, and end up with maybe 3 - 5 pages. To be provoked to new thoughts, to be pointed to new sources, to make new connections, come to a new understanding. I want a few thoughtful, challenging replies, not a stream of instant to-ing and fro-ing
Bigger usually is better.
According to the Kama Sutra, this is not true. Elephants are better for elephants and rabbits are better for rabbits, usually. I suppose ducks should have been included in all this (with ducks it gets tricky though, size doesn’t really apply to something not had). Just saying.
He he.... :smile:
Alright now, cut it out, there are many children present.
And most of them could probably teach you and me a thing or two. :yikes:
What was that about ducks? Geez, people obsessed with duck smut. Ballistic penises and corkscrew vaginas...
"Normally, the duck keeps its penis inside-out within a sac in its body. When the time for mating arrives, the penis explodes outwards to a fully-erect 20cm, around a quarter of the animal’s total body length. The whole process takes just a third of a second and Brennan captures it all on high-speed camera. This isn’t just bizarre voyeurism. Duck penises are a wonderful example of the strange things that happen when sexual conflict shapes the evolution of animal bodies."
Have you ever noticed how Donald Duck almost never shuts his mouth? You would think he would get cramps in his head and neck holding it open all the time.
Some call a moderator, this is definitely off topic.
And thank you for the detailed explanation of a duck's sex organs. Thank the lord you did not find a video about it.
Pikachu. What's yours?
Just thought of something else a thread should not have, negativism.
As a wise Martian, Uncle Martin, once said "The mind is like a parachute, it works best when it is open"
I laughed at this! :grin:
Noo!! Please don't! This thread is one of the ones that make me smile based upon the levity and those in attendance! :flower: